Agnosticism, atheism, and "spiritual struggle"

[Luce NDs]

I'm still an anti-theist. I still believe religion is a net-negative force in the world.

Thus we dei-st we will because we cannot support the gap in the sky ... that forming the clearr way out of the spot we've got ourselves into ... without even being comprehensive of the failure ...

To see such stuff (substance) one has to drift off substantially from a world that appears quite cruel ... some blame it on mother nature ... who eats us all up in the tales ... that was grandmother -AH! The source of that self consumptive reptile? Oriana's ...

There are other words as aphorisms ... alas most don't like heaps of word and prodigious connectors ... get into that gap ... and then it gets complex ... even the Profs restrict it ...


That's professor vessel or dictation-ship ... never say anything on your own ... without taking onus ... it counters the activity ... responsibility ... so no response is directed ... and many accept the fate as blind believer! Thus the Nacht in the day called dark ... did someone knock eth ...

Kind of a bump in what's purely obscure at this point (of view, or perspective) ... take down the robes for a peak ... to see what's under there ... Sous-la?

Maybe El Cid ... bema sked there ... skidding alone like a roadrunner related to what else ... mocking boids!

 

[Luce NDs]

How to get beyond it ... enigmatic ... AH?

 

[unsafe]

open atheist - doesn't believe in God but won't rule it out
closed atheist - positive that God does not exist (so, your classic atheist)
open agnostic - God's existence is unknown/unproven but could be provable
closed agnostic - God's existence is unknown/unprovable (again, the classic philosophical agnostic)

My view here

Your better off being a closed atheist or a closed agnostic then an open kind ------at least in your closed stance your state is of one mind which means your stable in your Stance and State ------the open ones leave you double minded and unstable in both your stance and your state in that you can be persuaded to change your state if provable -and it is not likely that anyone could prove that God's exists well enough to you that would make you change ---so your better to stay closed and be of one mind --

 

[chansen]

There is no "better" way for everyone. Again, this is insanity informing your views. Even I understand that there is no "one size fits all" solution here. I may advocate for my views, but I realize some may want to believe, or be especially open to possibilities.

Where I object again is where people insist the possibilities they want to happen will happen. That's a weird one I've run into here before, but being open to possibilities is not a weakness.

 

[Mendalla]

Where I object again is where people insist the possibilities they want to happen will happen.

That kind of thinking irks me, too. If people kept it to themselves in their own lives, I'd be fine with it but too often, they use to judge and put down others. "If you're not rich, you're just not doing it right" type of thing, ignoring the real social and economic circumstances of the other.

I kind of think the "open-closed" binary is a bit too restrictive. What is an agnostic who thinks God is unprovable objectively but might still believe based on subjective personal experience? It seems more open than closed, but is not quite their definition of "open" either. I know they were trying to focus on psychology and emotions rather than philosophy but the philosophy does reflect and influence the psychology so I think it does matter to a degree.

 

[Luce NDs]

That kind of thinking irks me, too. If people kept it to themselves in their own lives, I'd be fine with it but too often, they use to judge and put down others. "If you're not rich, you're just not doing it right" type of thing, ignoring the real social and economic circumstances of the other.

I kind of think the "open-closed" binary is a bit too restrictive. What is an agnostic who thinks God is unprovable objectively but might still believe based on subjective personal experience? It seems more open than closed, but is not quite their definition of "open" either. I know they were trying to focus on psychology and emotions rather than philosophy but the philosophy does reflect and influence the psychology so I think it does matter to a degree.

Thus the elimination and exorcist function ... allowing a vast cut in the fabrics of existence ... an escape 'ole thingy? Relax ... it is just another ridiculous word ... vast and loose ... maybe lucid from the view out-there!

Believe me I don't know and I do appreciate intelligence about alien gatherings. They might have some learnings ... that doth draw some 'ate-red ... among the vast will to know not nothing! Is that a close alliteration? Oh Kaye don't ... not now my love ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Oh Kaye ... I derived that from the steppes and Katherine ... raising question about "rine" and all that ... pig's kin?